Good wide-angle even on a 1,6x crop camera. Exceptional on film! Sharp.

Cons:

Very sensitive to flares, looses contrast to the extreme when sun is in the picture or bordering! No filters. Dual focus.

I bought this lens used of a 5D photographer who however wasn't too happy about it's performance after upgrading to fullframe, so he invested in a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L instead.

However I am very happy with the sharpness of this lens on my EOS 350D, and I like the zoom-range of the lens, especially on my EOS 33 (film camera).
I usually stop it down a bit, but even at f/5.6 it does it's job very well.

BUT, the lens is VERY sensitive to incomming light, eg. the sun in the picture or just outside it! Contrast drops dramatically if this happens and renders the pictures unusable, so you have to be very carefull when shooting against the sun.

The lens hood is build into the lens and not detachable, so you can not use filters straight away. However the lens cover has a filter thread built in, so with the metal ring part of the filter cover you can mount a filter, but it will darken the cornes at anything less than about 20-24mm focal length! Filters will darken the corners at any focal length on fullframe!

So when using filters i usually use my Sigma 20mm f/1.8 instead, that lens also handles flares a lot better!

The 15-30 is pretty heavy and large too, and as usual it has the Sigma dual focus system, annoying to change to from AF/MF!

Short version: Be very carefull with shots againt the sun, filters rarely useable and not recommended.

Sep 29, 2007

kool100vr4OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 23, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Aug 19, 2007

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $285.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Very sharp lens.

Cons:

Wish it was F2.8

I finally bought this lens, im so thrilled with it, i use it with my Fuji S3 pro, images are very sharp at all ranges,i shot about 350 shots on Vegas trip, mostly at night on tripod, all came out amzingly sharp. No vergnettes, some distortion, but that can be expected on this 15mm wide. I strongly suggested.
My copy is very sharp, now!, if your copy is not, then you should buy Fuji S3 pro.

Aug 19, 2007

William AustinOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 30, 2006Location: United KingdomPosts: 0

Review Date: Aug 14, 2007

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Sharp as a tac across the frame

Cons:

QC at sigma, 4th copy of this lens

This was my 4th copy of this lens, I had to return 3 before I got a good copy

The copy I have is so sharp, it's sharper than both the Canon 16-35mm and 17-40m that I used to have

For the price I paid an excellent lens, used on a Canon FF digital. Compares well with Canon's 17-40 L in most aspects except quietness in the AF, but AF is very accurate nonetheless. Well built although not weather proof, but I limit my use in dusty or wet conditions as the camera is not WP either! You can't put a filter on the front, and as others have commented there is a risk of damage to the front element, but I've not found this limiting. If anything a bit too wide at 15mm on FF, but correction is excellent.

Jun 15, 2007

Soetkin VdcOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 1, 2007Location: BelgiumPosts: 0

Review Date: May 9, 2007

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7

Pros:

Very sharp images, nice colours, good build quality

Cons:

Purple lens flare!!

The image quality and sharpness are very good!

But the lens flare was a big problem for me. So I sold the lens and bought a Canon 10-22mm. The image quality is the same, bur there is NO lens flare!

I can't recommend this lens for shooting indoor or for night photography. You will have too much lens flare.

It's a rathery big lens, but for me it wasn't a problem.
The build quality is very good!

May 9, 2007

thieeryOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 4, 2007Location: FrancePosts: 0

Review Date: May 4, 2007

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

sharpness, range, full frame

Cons:

Size and flare

I bought mine used on Ebay. When I tried it for the first time I found all my pictures over-exposed, but fortunately I was able to fix that imperfection myself (the guarantee period was elapsed).

I like its amazing and uncommon range and the possibility to use it both on film and digital Nikon cameras.

In quality this lens is way better than Sigma 18-200 dc.
Doesn't say much, but the Sigma 18-200 is not bad.

There is absolutely no CA.

Apr 19, 2007

Ian MillerOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 15, 2007Location: United KingdomPosts: 5

Review Date: Mar 16, 2007

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Good build quality, sharpness,accurate focus.

Cons:

Heavy and big, not for those with weak forearms.

Bought my copy well used off ebay. The optics on this lens are excellent but the front element is vulnerable as it is very bulbous. The lens is sharp wide open but to get the best from it should be stopped down to about f8 - f11. Quick and accurate focusing.

The colour is warm and to my liking and the bokeh is fine. This is my main walk about lens on my Kodak DCS620.

Good price on a second hand deal. This lens is three years old, but works perfectly. The wide end is incredible, despite the soft edges. The price included 82mm polarizer, which comes handy in every second moment.

I haven't used the manual focus ring too much. But I guess that switching the lens to manual doesn't do the trick, you have to adjust your camera body too. And on top of that, you have to pull the focus ring towards you to unlock the AF mode. This makes a funny popping noise

For the second hand price, excellent lens. But I wouldn't have bought it for it's list price (which here in Finland is close to 500 euros).

If you like the few extra mm this lens offers over the Tokina 19-35mm (or some other 3rd party small budget wideangle lens), Sigma is your choice if you can get it for under 300 $/euros.

Jan 7, 2007

Peter WirtoftOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 7, 2006Location: SwedenPosts: 2

Review Date: Dec 26, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Very sharp, low CA.

Cons:

AF is fast but loud, Damped purple flares occur when light source reaches lense. No filters can be applied.

I was looking for a lense with a range from 15/17 to 30/40
The EF 17-40 f4 was of course a choice here, but I saw the wider 15-30 and test made at "photozone" + the pricetag to be the judging components.

The EF 16-35 f2.8 was to expensive since I spend to much already on several lenses.

Find it to be a good choice. I think I will keep it.

It produces very high quality images, and that is the most important part of all.

Ok, flares.... thats a problem with a lense like this.

Dec 26, 2006

nigeldhOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 29, 2006Location: United StatesPosts: 2

Review Date: Nov 12, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Great wide angle coverage on my 30D with its 1.6x sensor.

Cons:

Like any extreme wide angle, you can't put a filter over the front element.

It is great to have true wide angle coverage on my 30D with its 1.6x sensor. I might try a thin filter on the front since shots with the hood protector on don't show vignetting.

It is bit softer then my Sigma 24-60 and Canon 28-135 but only when you look closely at very fine details. I have some test photos on luminousnature.com from these 3 lenses - 5 gal paint pails with lettering are in scene along with a wire covered bird feeder. I also have a macro photo taken with this lens.
Over on luminous-lanscape.com is "Focusing in The Digital Era," Gary Ferguson, has some thoughts about focusing in general.

I don't know how it compares to other Sigma 15-30, I might test an other 15-30 when I am next in NYC.
Good price (I use PowerSnipe for eBay auction sniping.) But then some of the other reviews say that buying this lens sight unseen, or at least without doing some test photos, may be risky.

Nov 12, 2006

asparkesOfflineBuy and Sell: On

Registered: May 21, 2006Location: United StatesPosts: 1960

Review Date: Oct 25, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Price, Price, Price. Good range ... pretty sharp.
For the price and If you don't shoot a ton of super-wide this is a good option.

Cons:

CA is obvious at the low end of the range and when opened up, however not nearly as bad as you'd expect for a lens that can be had on the BS forum for $350. Heavy. Terrible lens cap. Loud focus.

Bought this lens here on Buy/Sell.
I really wanted a superwide to slap on my MkII from time to time, but wasn't interested in dropping a ton of cash. I bought this on a total whim, not expecting to be impressed. Let me say that I have been pleasantly suprised. The focus is quick and sharp, and outside of the terrible lens cap setup and the loud as heck auto-focus. This lens is a great super wide zoom for the dollar. I would have loved to see it as a f/4 all the way through. 4.5 on the long end is not so great, but I would have given up 3.5 on the wide end for a consistant f/4. If you are getting this thing for under $400, don't hesitate. It is worth it!

Oct 25, 2006

bocaminusOnline

Registered: Apr 19, 2006Location: CanadaPosts: 533

Review Date: Oct 20, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Solid build, great range, really sharp

Cons:

Moderate vigneting

I got my copy 2 months ago and my first impressions were pretty mixed. I was looking for inexpensive 17-40L replacement and as far as price goes this lens was a great deal. Reading throughout reviews here on FM, I thought I can give it a try.
First, I have to say that lens shines in all aspects except a moderate vignetting present in the range from 15 to approximately 22mm. It is quite noticeable especially when shooting outdoor where center always become a bit overexposed compared to dark edges and corners. I think a little bit of work in PS can definitely fix this problem. I use lens correction filter and after processing all shots are quite astonishing! Color match and sharpness are probably the biggest pros of this lens. In some shots, I found Sigma 15-30 a bit sharper @ 30mm than my 24-70L. Overall, this is a great lens.... if you can spend few extra minutes in front of your computer fixing things up, you will love this wide angle Sigma.

Oct 20, 2006

irabkinOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 10, 2006Location: United StatesPosts: 4

Review Date: Sep 17, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Range, Build, "wow factor" for passers by.

Cons:

LOUD Focus. Vingetting even on a Crop body if you use a polarizer.

This lens is perfect as a wide angle on a crop body like the Rebel. It gives you decent wide angle reach, with reasonable sharpness for the price, and excellent build.

This is my new walkaround lens, and either this of the 50mm f/1.4 fits for 90% of the situations I'm in. It's kind asad too, I'm kinda less inclined to use my nice telephoto now.

Sep 17, 2006

svx94Offline[ X ]

Registered: Mar 25, 2005Location: CanadaPosts: 657

Review Date: Aug 28, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Good color, contrast

Cons:

Minor edge softness wide open, size

Used on 5D and very happy with it. The lens produce a typical Sigma warm color, which I like. It is littler softer than my 10-22, but not too bad. At F10, 11, which I use this lens mainly, the result is just great. And this is the lens (not the 224-105L) that shows the advantage of the 5D body !

The mark price for this lens is also attractive comparing with the Canon lenses.

This lens is about the same size as the Canon 24-105L, and weight about the same too. But the build feels better than the Canon.

AF is slower and noisier than Canon USM lens. This is not a HSM lens, so you should expect that. But for a landscape lens, I think it is perfectly fine.

In short, GOOD DEAL !

Aug 28, 2006

lfguyOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 1, 2006Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Aug 1, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Reasonably sharp, super wide angle lens that works with a full frame camera.

Cons:

Not possible to remove lenshood.

I did my homework on this lens, and I haven't been disappointed. I use it for architecture and tripod photography. I wanted a super-wide that would work on a full-frame camera. I considered the Canon, which I could have purchased. But, reports of average sharpness and distortion of the Canon L super-wides (previous or current models) persuaded me against those lenses. (Why pay a high price for mediocre quality?) I tried a couple of the Sigma 12-24mm's, and neither was acceptable. After seeing tests of the Sigma 15-30 on the old Rob Galbraith site, I purchased one new from Cameta.Com.

Now that I've used it for a few months, I like the lens. I regard it as a sharp lens. Not like my 24-70 L, but sharp. I knew in advance that it distorts. On my example, it pincushions above about 24mm and barrels somewhat below that focal length. I obtain acceptable corrections (for me) using the Photoshop Lens Distortion filters. (If I photograph above 24mm, I use a different lens.) I haven't noticed too much vignetting, even at 15mm. It's nice being able to photograph a little wider than I need. Both corrections for distortion and perspective consume edges of the image.

Did I get lucky with my example? It's hard to say. I think the production consistency is better than that for the 12-24mm. For whatever the reason, I got a nice lens for a reasonable price.